tv U.S. Senate CSPAN March 30, 2012 5:00pm-7:00pm EDT
we have looked and we have a series of studies including one pretty recently, looking at federal subsidies and support. you know i think it changes over time. right now, again, a lot of subsidies and support are going to, a lot of -- one man's a lot is another man's little. there is a lot of support and significant support for efficiency. some of the subsidies like some of the subsidies for synthetic colds, you know kohl, transformed coal have expired, so this change over time you know, there have been specific subsidies to both fossil and non-also fuels and increasing proficiency.
the opposite thing. i know how these things are defined really lead to very different con -- conclusions. >> thank you. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. foreman. doctor, i'll probably start with you. you talked about the supply and demand equation. world demand is going higher for crude oil and for energy in general, and so we have tight or very little spare capacity in the crude oil markets, and so that kind of -- two aspects to that. the supply and demand equation creates upward prices on gas prices today based on supply and demand, and also there's the anticipated futures anticipation. if there's growing demand, not growing supply, that creates upward pressure on gas prices as well. doctor, you're going to -- is that accurate so far in terms of reflecting your statements? okay.
my question to you and to the others is going to be so if the administration has policies, and if this congress sets policies that allows for more access on shore drilling and offshore drilling on federal lands and offshore, if we allow more access, does that create more supply and tend to reduce gas prices today in terms of actual supplies to produce more, but also in terms of market signals saying, hey, we're going to try to produce more energy rather than constrict it? >> well, i think the increase in supply would have an impact. here i have a slight disagreement with frank. i think a 300,000 to 400,000 barrels a day increase, and if we saw that increase from iraq or another country, we'd be thrilled, and i think here, too, that's a significant number of barrels coming into the market when every barrel counts, and
frank described a change in psychology outlook in the united states that we have a more resource rich opportunity here than was thought a few years ago. that contributes to the psychology of the market. you know, just doesn't happen overnight. >> right. there's both aspects. there's the immediate supply-demand equation, but also anticipated in terms of where we are going that affects outlooks in terms of pricing decisions and drives prices as well. for example, if we have policies that provide more access on shore and off, that, for example, if i was to build pipelines rather than blocking pipelines, logistics, and one of you referred to the importance of logistics earlier, and streamline permitting rather than regulatory red tape, and reduce burden rather than add regulatory burden, wouldn't those types of factors send clear signals we're going to work to expand supply and the
market takes that into effect in pricing? i'd like each of you to respond to that question, if you would, please. >> just to finish, i think, yes, and i think one of the things you pointed to is the expediting of decision making that would be very valuable to people committing capital and making investment decisions in terms of giving them the confidence to go ahead. >> i think my answer is related to senator portman's earlier question about direct and indirect effects is where i stand on that. >> you would agree if you take a whole range of steps to increase supply, that would tend to help in terms of downward pressure on prices versus a whole step, a whole range of steps that constricts supply creates upward pressure. would that generally be true? >> yeah, all else being equal, it's true. >> okay. thank you. >> i think the issue is timing; right? there's a difference in the tight market if you bring a lot of barrels to bear immediately,
there's a big impact saying you're going to do something that results in production 15 years down the road or five years down the road with less impact, and to clarify, i'm in the same boat with dan on this. i believe -- i'm not down playing, but i think production of 300,000 to 400 thorks barrels a day is helpful. >> respond to my question, not the other point. [laughter] >> you managed to describe keystone without saying "keystone." there's a couple things that happened with keystone. should a pipeline be built if some people are willing to put up $700 million to bring oil sands sot goffing, is that a good thing? absolutely. >> thank you. that's a great place to stop. >> i have one more point. [laughter] right now, there's between 700,000 barrels a day and a million barrels a day excess capacity, rail and pipe. there's no limitation on what's coming down from canada right
now and probably won't be. it's not a national security issue right now. >> well, but there's a difference when it's hauled by rail adding significantly higher cost to it. there's also the issue of canada having the third largest oil reserves in the country, and the question whether we develop them with things like with better environmental scrutiny or see the product go offshore. i want to give doctor an opportunity to respond as well. >> yeah, it's a question of timing. i think that's an exception -- expectation that the supply situation may turn and improve into the midterm. it's something which starts to anchor longer term price expectations, and earlier, there seems to be much more stability in longer term price expectations over the last year or so with most pointing to 90-100 as a good long run price. price where the oil sands are developed, where the technologies do come on, and where the development continues.
anchoring long term, but does not perhaps bring down pressure on short term prices. >> right. expectations are changing for the reason you're saying. i'm over time, so just very quickly, but would you agree logistics are important? building pipelines and making sure we can access oil is -- would you agree that those logistics are very important in terms -- pricing around the country? >> absolutely. the big build is the next thing that's coming. >> you'd say it's very important we do that? >> absolutely. >> very important? >> yes. >> if i can answer also, i noticed on the agenda of the canadian research institute that has a conference every year in calgary, there's a session talking about native land rights clearly saying they wish to develop resources, and if the pipeline is not down south, they'll try to build it out towards the coast and sub it to china. again, the pipelines are critical for long term trade
patterns. >> thank you, doctor. >> thank you. we're in the middle of a vote, so i have to go to the floor to vote. senator wyden already voted and returned. senator shaheen, continue with your questions, and we'll conclude with questions from other senators, but thank you very much for willing here. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i listened to all of your testimony earlier, and i'm confused, i think, as many of my con -- constituents are, if the supply is up why is the market down -- and why are prices going up so precipitously, and i appreciate the geopolitical impact on prices, but why is there that with respect to green spect.
>> they are global markets and supply is up in the united states and demand is down in the united states, as has been discussed in the hearing, globally demand is still rising because of the developing countries, and at the same time, there's been discussion by my colleagues of some of the supply issues. i think that is the answer, although it's not what your constituents would obviously like to hear. >> right. but it does speak to the fact that given that even if we dramatically increase supply here and reduce demand, we're still going to be at the whim of what happens in the global markets. >> well, if you -- well, i think one thing to say about that would be that reducing demand, you know, does not put you -- i mean, it basically, if we were not -- we're not going to get there easily because oil does a lot of good things, heats the homes, in your area, we drive around with it, but the bottom
line is, if, in fact, one can find alternatives or displace oil demand, then you are less at the whims, and in terms of supply, contributing to, you know, we are a part of global supply and contributing to supply does matter also. >> i think that if you go back to what happened in the the mid 1980s, supply was way up, demand down, and that was a big factor that led to oil prices coming down. what happens in the united states really does have an impact. we're the largest consumer, but part of a global mark, but if we make a big shift, continue to be more first time, if the supply increases, then that does affect the prices that your constituency pays at the pump and what they pay for heating oil. even you look at norway which is, you know, produces much more oil than it needs, it's still -- its citizens may world prices because it's one market. if we were 110% self-sufficient,
that's a different game. >> i was interested in your policy model, the triangle with energy efficiency in the center, and i will tell you, i'm particularly interested in this because smart portman and -- senator portman and i have legislation that tries to incentivize energy efficiency in our building sector, throughout the government, and our industrial sector, and i wonder if you could speak to the importance of energy efficiency in that model? >> sure, senator. when we tried to compare security availability and afford the, the only sweet spot is efficiency. it's overlooked. it's better in the united states than others around the world, and it's true, a barrel saved here is equivalent to a barrel saved in china. it's not getting enough attention. it's difficult to put your arms
around in the building code because of state and local codes and disincentives with renters and people who own the buildings; right? ? in new construction, there's a way to do it, but the regulatory structure has to be overhauled as well. it's critically important. >> there's voluntary building codes with incentives to try to encourage states to adopt them. i appreciate the point you're making. dr. yergin, the new hampshire legislature just -- has just asked the public utilities commission to look at the use of the growing use of natural gas in new hampshire with the concern that as we have, in the past, been over reliant on oil and coal, that there's some concern that we might become over reliant on gas, and i wonder if you could speak to that in light of the new reserves and whether there's
reason to be concerned about that or whether we should be looking for a diverse -- whether it's a diversified portfolio. >> well, i think a diversified portfolio is prudent under any circumstances, and back to the previous questions, in the request, i talk about energy efficiency is the fifth wheel, and we're twice as energy first time as a country today than we were 20-30 years ago, and we have to be twice as efficient again. i think that, you know, i think a lot of people have raised the question as we've seen this shale gas development over the last five years, is this going to be another cycle? are supplies going to disappear? i think that progressively you've seen consumers, industrial companies, utilities, more and more confident there's major supply here and the supply will continue, and we're not going to have another one of these whip saw, but prudent sigh just says, you know, obviously, don't put all your eggs in any one energy basket. >> pass energy efficiency;
right? >> absolutely. >> my legislation with senator portman. >> right. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you very much, all, for being with us, and apologies that it's so heck tore an senators are running to keep up with hearings on the floor. i read all your testimony last night, and lucky to have so many individuals with lots of expertise in the area, and i come to really try to zero in on o couple factual judgments that stems from the conversations we've had with respect to changes in the energy business, and let me ask specifically about the oil futures business. when i look at the numbers, it seems to me that there's been a dramatic change in the last four years, and i want to just see if we can get on the record whether
you share that view. it looks to me like four years ago, the non-commercial trader, the person who's in effect called a speak -- speculator, these persons held less than half of the futures contracts for crude oil. a number of years ago we talked about, you know, people who held these futures. they were trucking companies. they were airlines. these kinds of people who were tbhot, you know, traders. now, today, according to the chairman of the commodities future trading commission, these traders now account for 85% of the crude oil futures market. i read your testimony last night, and none of you touched on this factor, the changes in the oil futures market. i think the first question i
want to get into, and just go right down the row, do each of you believe that this change in the significant number of traders, commercial traders, in the oil futures market is significant? just a yes or no is good. go down the row. doctor? >> maybe it's not allowed. that's a legitimate question, but it's hard, you know, i don't have a short answer. >> there's no gag orders. >> well, that's good. one of the questions is, well, first of all, because someone has a title or how they are categorized as an organization does not necessarily tell you the motivation behind a particular trade is one question. the other thing is there's a lot of off activity that goes on off exchanges that are not included
in the data, but i would say, you know, the general perception, i'd tend to agree with you. there's a lot more activity. >> great. >> i'm just trying to be fair. >> see if we can get facts on the record, and then questions on your opinions. doctor, you again. particularly for you because you have educated me on the fact that there's a lot of changes going on, and because you all didn't touch on this one in the testimony, i just want to see if you all share my view this has been a significant change. >> well, i think, yes, it's been a sibility change. -- significant change. i don't think based on our understanding today it's the driving force to emphasize thing, and the crisis with iran in 1979 and 1980, there was no futures and prices went up sharply. it's a visible part of the mix. >> frank, it's your graphic. >> so, senator, part of the
reason we didn't go in detail in the testimony was because at one point we anticipated a second panel with commissioners. we're going to leave that kind of to their area of expertise. i agree with what howard and dan have said. i think there's been a change in the market. i don't want to characterize it as necessarily good or bad. there are new players. it's part of what we're calling the kind of new fundmentals which used to be supply, demand, and inventory. it's a lot more complex market. >> okay. >> i think the reason it was not really testimony is that we're reasonably happy with the supply expectations as to where prices are and why they behaved. there's not a big residual leftover to be explained by something else. in that sense, it doesn't make a difference to where the price it today. in some way, this is a great american success story. the success of the exchanges in
deepening liquidity, deepening the involvement, and for me, more liquidity is a good thing. it's a significant part, but of a very large global oil market that makes up -- that has other bits on top of it, seeing more liquidity come on to regulated exchanges, again, should be seen as the good news. i much prefer to see activity taking place somewhere where i can see it, and so i don't think it's a problem in terms of increasing prices. another thing on this, just to go back on stuff k i think we have to draw distinction between activity by institution investors and hedge funds. >> i want to get one additional question in. goldman sachs produced an analysis suggesting that the speculation premium on crude oil could be $23 a barrel or 56 cents a gallon at the pump. the consumer federation produced their analysis concluding speculation adds 20% to the price at the pump or roughly 50
cents. a year ago as we discussed briefly the ceo stated that speculation increased the price of a barrel of oil by $20. now can i just get a yes or no with respect to this question whether you think these analysis because all three of them, all three of them agree that there was a speculative premium for a barrel of oil. i would just like to know whether the four of you think if all the analysis are wrong. let's go down the row. i took an extra minute, but there were three analysis done by three different organizations with different philosophical roots, and all concluded there was a speculation premium, and i'd just like to know if you think those analysis are wrong. go right down the row. >> i would want to read the specific studies first before i
commented on them, but i think, i think a lot of the issue, you know, sometimes the different assessments of the role of speculation have to do with the standard of proof or burden of proof that's applied. you know, if you apply an innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt standard, i think my reading of the literature as a whole, not just three studies, which i was not read, is that speculation would not be convicted. if instead you look at the guilt confirmed unless innocence is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that some jurisdictions use when considering whether to exonerate and release convicted prisoners, speculation is not getting out of jail any time soon, and so, you know -- >> i think -- >> we have this discussion -- >> i'll take it as a no. >> well, i don't know what -- i have a feeling that different people have this discussion are really applying different standards of proof, and that's the issue as much as the competition of the different
results. that's my view. >> doctor? >> oil prices, gasoline prices are both up 20% since the u.n. issued the report about iran's nuclear program. it's not a speculative premium, but a risk or security premium, but there's a premium that reflects increased tension in the market. >> not surprisingly, i agree with howard and dan. there is a premium in the market over and above finding development costs. i don't distribute it all to speculation, and i want to see the studies and definitions are important, senator. >> it's a no for me. those results don't offer anything plausible. part of the evidence is if there was a large premium, prices would then be higher than a market price which should mean we would be seeing large surfaces building up, people in the physical market would be asking for discounts because they want to pay the fiscal price, not the speculative
price. what we see today is people paying large premiums to get deliveries accelerated. it's the resers. there's no global surplus building up, but limited software capacity, eight straight quarters of draw, and now we have a balanced market at this price, and 10 i just think that is incorrect to think in terms of speculative premiums. >> let's go to senator -- i think it's striking, gentlemen, with all four of you say that organizations from goldman sachs to the ceo of mobile are off base on this. i just don't operate under assumption that somebody with a xerox machine make speculations, but when you have a wide array
of philosophies saying there's a premium, there's something to be addressed by policymakers. i gather that senator mir cow ski was here, but she's had a turn -- >> i had a turn. >> let's recognize senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator east always very gracious. gentlemen, this has been informative, enjoyable, learned a lot as i think we all have. i want to talk what senator wyden pointed out that we have to be realistic as policymakers here in washington that if we squeeze iran, we're going to see a risk premium built into international oil markets. i think you agree, and i think it would behoove us when we talk about high oil prices and high prices at the pump, and we've become outraged, we have to say we've all, for the most part here in washington, said it's in the national security interest to squeeze iran, and as a part
of the process, we can anticipate gasoline prices rise. we have to be straight with the american public that that's in part what's happening. i think that senator campbell made good points about the difference between legitimate hedgers and speak laters. interesting to differentiate between the two, and in that context, i want to follow-up on what she began to elude to which is international global energy markets, and can you all address how the u.s. has global energy markets? how do we work with the international community to reduce the pain at the pump, not just for our citizens, but as senator pointed out, japan, the europeans, and the chinese. i've been pushing the state department and ustr to see what they could do to use all options, diplomatic and economic
to stabilize prices in the arena. curious of your thoughts, starting with you, doctor, your republics on how to do that. >> it's not a policy agency, but the state department is establishing, for the first time, i believe, a new bureau of energy, you know, at the assistance level, that's the initiative, and i think the nominee has been nominated and had the hearing recently. i think before that, i think there's a lot of outreach, and i know in the shale gas area, a lot of international outreach, not done by us, but the state department and sharing technology, and there's a lot of interest, a lot of investment in foreign companies, in our, you know, horizontal drilling and fracturing operations in part because i think they. to gain experience to the extent
that plays out in sort of oil which has been discussed in this hearing in part. you know, that's available in the united states. it's been a big important change or leading to some of the increases in production in north dakota and the eagle ford and some other places in california as well. if that technology becomes more globally available as one would expect it will, you know, at first, shale gas began in the united states and became global, and maybe tight oil becomes global, and that becomes an opportunity to really change the supply and demand balance in world oil markets, and i think there's a lot of opportunities. >> exporting technology? >> exporting our technology and efficiency technologies, again, because the same thing here, to the extent that vehicles are more efficient globally, you know, we're the biggest gasoline market, but there are other markets for gasoline and diesel fuel around the world, and things we can do to disseminate
technologies that either increase supply or reduce demand and, frankly, both, is very, very -- seems very important to me. i know that the state department and others in the government are very interested in that. >> doctor, i know you have the answer here. >> hardly, but i think that what you're talking about is encouraging other countries to have more open markets to investment and to a timely ability to make timely investment, and i think that, as you're suggesting, is part of the trade agenda, would be very constructive to this because that, again, gets more supplies into the market and more quickly. >> augments what the colleagues said, there's two additional pieces. when you look at international institutions, i think the use of the ief, the international energy forum, and the bilateral
arrangements, i actually think by bringing saudi arabia into the g20 helped in the post lib ya conflict. there was a day in july -- either end of june or july -- a global community forum, and it was the same day as an opec meeting, and it was described as the worst opec meeting ever, and there was concern about the u.s. government expressing concern that opec didn't step up to the table and increase supplies given libya was offline, and the saudis did. the hawks in opec, venezuela and iran looked to increase price, not volume. the saudis wanted to increase the supplies. we delude the impact of opec by bringing responsible players in the g20. senator, i know you talked about it before, that the iea sharing arrangement really needs an overhaul in terms of obligations and how we identify stock
holding and a bunch of things we do in joint basis, how we engage china and india. i mean, unless we change, that institution is in danger of being irrelevant. >> do you have a e.u. per perspective? >> i'm not grand enough to do that, but there are circumstances where there is a foreign policy aspect and mentioned the one that surprises people that the biggest supply inturption today is the situation in south sudan, and, so, again, i'm sure that's something which state is fully aware of with a 345eu -- major oil component on that, and endorsing the comments working with the ief, working for howard's team's working with improving the transparency of the global markets is always an extremely good thing. i think one thing to say also is
the iea and the role of the iea, i think there has been a drift in recent years for energy policy's that's become unilateral and bilateral when clearly multilateral response works better to these aspects, and it's worrying to us over the past couple of months that the potential effectiveness of the left controlling the heated marketses, might be deluded by the move towards unilateral and bilateral energy policy when we should be building up. iea rather than underminding at it at this point. >> thank you. the reason there's an energy bureau is because the u.s. senate encouraged it to have an energy bureau, and that is a difference to have that clear component in foreign policy. >> i'm sure that was driven by senators who ably lead this committee, and i would -- well,
timely just propose to my colleagues that we could go back to the bingaman produced in the last congress and move forward. there would be a lot of positive results on this topic we're discussing today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for the plug on the energy bill. let me ask, since a good discussion here about the role of speculation. i'm going to ask you to speculate just a little bit here. what do you think the response in the market would be if there were a commitment here in this country to bring on a million, two million barrels a day even if we recognize, okay, it's going to be five years before we actually see that out in the market, but a commitment, say whether it is -- whether it's an opening of end, whether it's
substantial commitment to additional production, and even though it's not here today, how do you think that impacts the market? doctor? >> unemployment goes all the way to australia, but, no, i think it really depends on the amount of oil, you know, the nature of the commitments because a lot of commitments are made. >> let's assume for discussion's sake it would be a real commitment of a million barrels a day. >> okay. i think only, you know, over 10 years, i think only modest price impacts would be expected. frankly, if supply from drilling, you know, in one area like the united states is offset by production in supply of other parts of the world, which another something that could happen, or if demand is relatively more responsive to changes in supply and demand is more price responsive over a longer time period, and so the
short run, the million barrels tomorrow is a different thing than a million barrels ten years from now, both in terms of offsetting response pes and in terms of the demand response. >> a modest impact on prices today? >> modest impact on prices, but a lot of environment and geopolitical benefits. those are the things to be more confident of. >> what about the rest? doctor yergin? >> i think we can, you know, looking over the iran riergt now, i think you can sort of see a change in expectations in the market already occurring among other countries and participants in the market seeing this in decline and upserge and demand going down. i think it's there. to use a -- to vary on what paul
said, have expectations, and obviously, it has to be cred l, and people have to see it coming, and i think now things that increase the sense of confidence, what we need, and this goes back to senatorwide p's question about -- senator wyden's question about the premium. if there's a greater sense of confidence from many different directions, it is an ingredient to be helpful in the short term. >> yep. >> so i guess i'm more in line with howard's comments. dan's comments are very well, but i think that the value adhere is especially as we move into the unconventionals since we're doing it first, if the u.s. can it demonstrate they can get it right in terms of shale gas and tide oil production, it has huge implications throughout the global. if it's a global balance, you can increase volumes by huge numbers. i guess, though, that the next piece is this kind of great dilemma idea. like what cowe --
do we want to be? the environmental community is upset talking about 200 years of natural gas because if you look to move to a lower carbon economy, that delays that reckoning date. there was sense in terms of the narrative being consistent that if you're on the path to a cleaner fuel economy because you were running out, prices got high ergs and volatility increased, you had a potential imptous, but now if it's a vast and abundant resource you developed, you extend, which i think needs to be extended, but you extend the life of conventional fuels, cleaner, safer, but they go on longer, and in my minute, we have breathing space then to figure out the next step because we're not there yet. >> doctor k i'm going to ask you a more specific question, if i may, and it's my last, but i wanted 20 ask that one -- wanted to ask that one because talking the potential for anwar,
the potential push back is it's not going to have impact because you can't see production online for a period of 8-10 years under best case scenario, and therefore, jus don't start. i don't accept that logic, and i do think it helps to bring exactly the confidence that dr. yergin mentioned here. the last question for you is it -- is if you can share a little of the experience that great britain had a couple years ago faced with high gas prices. they made a decision to increase their taxes quite dramatically. we just came from a vote that attempts to do the same effectively increase the taxes on the oil and gas industry. you now reversed that position. it's my understanding in the two
years since the increase in taxes, what you have seen is a tripling of the decline in production and so can you speak to the experience there and what led to the decision to impose the taxes and now to reverse those? >> yes, sorry. i think i'll say the tax increase was greeted by the industry with a certain amount of shock, not only because it was a tax increase, but also because it made the whole fiscal regime somewhat unstable. it was a surprise. it's making long term decisions on how to exploit the declining phase and then finding the fiscal regimes bounced around. it certainly meant that in the occasional polls where people asked what's the most dangerous
or what's the best place to up vest, what's the worst place to invest, i think the government would say it's price in the u.k. was close and almost being a bad place to invest. the political stability was being undermind by some fiscal up stability. >> so in other words in a country like the united kingdom, you were stacked up against other nations like angola in saying you're a bad investment opportunity? >> it's -- yes. again, the investment is very much that one of enhancing recovery and making the best of the last stage, but it did appear the capital could be more effectively employed elsewhere, and really ready to stem prospects of any migration of capital, make sure the north sea continues issue and that was part of the reversal running through. again, i'm not an expert in u.k.
facts, but in temperatures of what happened there, the instability impacts the flow of that investment. >> well, thank you. i appreciate the fact that you have come all the way to be part of the testimony this morning. very credible pam, and you have certainly enhanced the credibility. we appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let me leave you with one other kind of thought because i know not just this committee, but others in the country will ask your opinion about some of the policies that we're going to have to address in the days ahead, and i sort of start this judgment and come to the hearing to offer up the idea that to get good public policy, you've got to get your arms around at least some common ground on the facts. you may not get everybody to agree on every aspect of the
factual situation, but you got to find some ways to get to common ground on some of these key facts, and in particular, i serve on the intelligence committee, for example, and i certainly share the judgment that iran is part of this whole debate. there's no question about this. i will tell you i'm very reluctant to accept the idea that all of the risk is the situation in iran. that's to a great extent where you all have guided much of this discussion. you look, for example, at the fact that goldman sachs practiceically invented the index fund. they know a lot about the impact of non-commercial investment.
these are people who have played an enormous role in this sector, and they produce an analysis sunlighting that the speculative premium on crude oil could be $23 a barrel or 56 cents a gallon at the pump. you have the ceo of the largest oil company stating that speculation increased the price of the barrel of oil by $20. these are significant judgments, and i hope that as we go forward, we can continue to have this discussion, and i i understand that a number of you said that you had not had a chance to look thoroughly at these studies, and i respect that, but i hope that you will. i would very much personally like to have your judgments with respect to whether you think those analysis are wrong, and i
just want you to know as somebody who's been on the committee for quite sometime, i'm prepared to accept the proposition based on my work here and in the intelligence committee, that the situation in iran is certainly a part of the call cue -- calculus, but i don't by the theory this is the entire concern we're dealing with, and i hope you take a look at those studies because it was the fact that there were three of them and certainly by two sources with considerable expertise in industry activities, one, the consumer federation advocates for consumer, but they do a good job of getting the facts, doing homework, and the fact that all three of them reached this judgment, to me, has got to be a significant part of the debate as we try to at least see if we can find common ground to make
policies, and i'm prepared, as part of that effort to make policy to acknowledge there's no question that the situation in iran is part of the debate. your colleague had the hand up first, but we're happy to hear from both of you. >> yeah, okay. i just want to say that iea is actually very interested in the topic, and that's not, you know, that's very important to lay out. you know, in 2009, we launched an energy and financial markets initiative exactly what the aim of the assessing the influences of the financial activities and markets, hedging investment, as well as our traditional fundamentals work, produced a website, energy and financial markets, what drives crude oil prices, and, you know, we discussed the role of futures trading, very interested in increasing the evidence, the body of evidence so to speak.
we update that website on a monthly basis. we brought together many of the leading researchers in the area, and i know there's a paper by professor singleton, a former colleague of mine when i was at carnegie melon, but we brought the cftc over, worked with them, held a couple of workshops, and we need to improve our understanding of physical and financial market link aimings, and we want to continue to collaborate with other federal agencies to improve both the data in this area, which is our mission, and the analysis in the area, and so i want to really -- that's a serious commitment. i know that the nominees, the administer was before the committee recently, he's very interested in this, and he has great expertise in this area. i think it will help us get more traction in this area, but this is not something we're ignoring, and certainly, eia said it's all iran or something.
that is not our position, and so i really appreciate you bringing up the issue. you know, is it a critical issue, and i want to be clear about that. i mean, i'm not disrespecting that issue or dismissing it in any way. i do think that the standard of proof that people apply does vary. i think what's important is to just get more evidence, and that's where iea's role would be. thank you. >> i think that the financialization of commodity markets has been marred since 2005, and it's important to understand it affects the oil market. i think in terms of facts on the ground, i think there's a general agreement that there's a premium. it's kind of what's driving the premium, and i just want to say it's not all iran. what is unique about this situation with iran is it's not only the tension, but it's that the policy of the u.s. government, the policy of europe is to drive down iranian oil in the market, and drive a million,
maybe more barrels out of the market in a very tight market, and the second factor is we have a tight market anyway, and the tightness reminds me of 2005. it reminds me of the eve of the 1973 oil crisis. it's kind of that tight, and we were using a number of 750,000 barrels a day of other out aimings. i noticed paul's number is higher, closer to a million barrels a day of sort of above average so it's iran and the concerns there, and the focus of policy of what's going to start happening before or after the end of june, but on the other hand, it's also that -- this is all occurring in a tight market to begin with, and that's part of it. >> there's never been a time when doctor yergin didn't highlight additional issues in my judgment on this question, and without keeping you here all afternoon, i note that saudi
arabia has 2.5 million barrels a day of capacity. they are now engaged in a major drilling program to expand their capacity. roiters reported they'll have 140 drill rigs operating in saudi arabia, and so this conversation's obviously going to be continued on the question of capacity, on the question of iran. on the question of speculation, but i want the four of you to walk out of here with a request from me that i would be very appreciative if you would analyze those three studies, the goldman sachs analysis, the consumer federation of america, and certainly get you the testimony that led the exxon mobile ceo to offer the judgment, the speculation increased the price of a barrel of oil by $20, and i'd like to hear from you four recognized
authorities in the field whether you think those three studies are off base because i'm stipulating to the fact that i think iran's a factor. i stipulate trying to follow almost daily what's happening in the capacity area, but it is hard to walk away from these judgments from three people who have spent a considerable amount of time, all of whom concluding there is a significant speculation premium, and 10 the door's open to you, and i would be very interested in your reaction. gentlemen, if you have something you feel strongly about, i'll let you offer it, and otherwise, i think we've got to wrap this up. either of you like to -- >> just on that point. very happy -- >> good. >> all three organizations on that point because ill they are wrong, but i -- >> i got the drift on that.
[laughter] >> i wouldn't like you to have the impression those views represents majority views among all animal -- analysts. it's a minority view. >> that's why you are welcomed to show us why people like goldman sachs are wrong. all right. gentlemen, we thank you. you've been very party through a morning that's been hectic by senate standards, and with that, the committee's adjourned, and, oh, for the information for all members, additional statements and questions for the hearing are due tomorrow by 5:30 p.m., march 30th. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
>> good afternoon. good afternoon, everyone. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, good afternoon. i'm the executive vice president of the feminist majority and executive editor of "miss" magazine. welcome to all of you. [cheers and applause] welcome to our c-span audience. you will be able to catch this on c-span. we're also live streaming on the feministmajority.org youtube channel. spread words to your friends and colleagues so they can enjoy today as well. thank you so very, very much for joining us. this is the 25th anniversary luncheon for the feminist
majority. [cheers and applause] 25 years, and we're celebrating as part of the anniversary our furious awards honoring today senator barbara boxer, afl-cio executive vice president, arlen hope baker, and congresswoman carolyn mahloney. [cheers and applause] this is part of the power forum spot sored by the feminist majority and 51 co-sponsoring women's organizations, and we brought together an incredible gathering of act vieses from all across the country. this morning, we heard from top feminist leaders about the war on women's health and what's at stake on health care and on the access of birth control.
and we hope you stay tuned and stay with us after this luncheon. now, we've had a little of a change of plans, as one always has to do while in washington, d.c.. unfortunately, today is the last day that congress is in session, and senator barbara boxer has been held back from attending the luncheon today because there's very critical votes on bills that she's the sponsor of so she candidate join us. but senator will accept senator boxer's award on her behalf and we are going to start with the salute to senator boxer because she's been such a leader for women in the united states' senate and before that in the
congress. we will start with the salute, and i'm joined on the stage right now by -- [inaudible] >> hello. i'm a member of the west springfield high school virginia chapter of girls learn international. [cheers and applause] thank you. as you all know, it's a program of the majority feminist organization. i'm so proud we're hop norring senator barbara boxer. for the past four years, our chapter has been learning about how human rights issues like poverty, early forced marriage, and gender based violence impact girls worldwide, and how these obstacles diminish girls' ability to get a quality education, especially in
countries of the global south. i learned firsthand about the issue from women and girls around the world when i attended the commission on the status of women at the united nations. as a delegate this year, these are all issues senator boxer cares deeply about. on behalf of girls everywhere, i salute and thank senator boxer for her role in the rights of girls and women in the united states and around the world. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, seethal. it's my great hop nor to introduce the co-founder and chair of the feminist majority organization. now, peg said not to say anything further when i introduced her. [laughter] peg, i want people here, who
many are from the washington, d.c. area, to know a little more about you. for 25 years, peg has been involved in all of the major campaigns of the feminist majority and the feminist majority foundation including our successful campaign to bring are you 46 to this country, drawing the world's attention to the situation of women and girls in afghanistan, and the acquisition of "miss" magazine. you're as likely to find peg going through materials and alphabetized name tags as you are to find her talking politics with congress members, senators, and even presidents. peg is a leader in supporting women candidates. she's practically under here's, and played a leadership role in the los angeles based political committee, one of the largest women's packs in this country. please welcome peg.
the senate, barbara boxer is the epitome of that. senator boxer was elected to the united states senate in 1992, you're year of the woman. can i have some water? she was elected to the united states and in 1992, the year of the woman. i remember that year while because that was the year we doubled the number of women in congress from 5% to 10%. think about that. hughes, right? it was a long time ago. in my state of california became the first in the country who sent two women to the united states congress. [cheers and applause] , california. the year before college and i
were of the house of representatives, barbara let the march of women members of congress that decides to the u.s. capitol building to demand that any day he'll be heard. remember that? some of you are too young. and longtime ago. senator boxer has earned a reputation as the senate leading champion on project team. she stares the environment public works committee and is the first woman in senate history to do so. she works to protect their health by improving air and water quality and promotes the sustainable use of natural resources. she is on the senate to provide global warming and the 21st century transportation bill for the united states, which is what she is voting on today and it expires tomorrow, so it is very important that she be there. another boxer also extends to this committee and affects.
they can share to senate committees. she's a senior member of the senate commerce committee and senator foreign relations committee, which she shares the first cup committee ever to focus on global women's issues. the sub committee on human rights democracy and global women's issues, which is the majority's particular purview. she's a leader in the senate on effort to accept the rights of women's and girls and that world participation in society is essential to the reconstruction of a stable and democratic country. we have worked closely with senator boxer to the $556 million in earmarks for afghan women and girls developments in education programs. a lot of money.
[applause] the senator is and always has been a champ in of women's rights and reprint rights. a leading defender of women's rights to choose, senator boxer held to the florida fights through passage of the freedom access influences that, [cheers and applause] she is chief sponsor of a bill to make permanent the repeal of the global proposal. [cheers and applause] she continues to lead efforts to extremists to women's health and women's right to privacy. we cannot count on her. on a personal level, you first met the senator in 1982 while she was running for congress three years ago. and ever since i have met with her all over the country at all kinds of events, she has that
wonderful, straightforward progressive voice that we live in california. i would like to ask the numbers maturity foundation campaign to join me on this stage. [inaudible] >> i think you can do it. >> okay, so let me move the box here. i am extremely thrilled to be presenting the senate majority 2012 trailblazer award to the amazing, incredible barbara boxer. senator boxer, i have never seen anybody to their shot more thoroughly, more constantly, more tirelessly and senator boxer. she's just the eighth wonder of the world to me. and certainly wonder of
feminism. okay, well i was going to -- there's been a change of plans. so i will be coming out with senator mikulski on barbara's award. thank you. cotton mac >> my name is antonio to go and i'm a student at the community college in maryland and a copresident of the campus leadership alliance. i'm incredibly proud to maturity is honoring my senator, senator barbara mikulski for her achievements of reshaping women's rights for my future in the future of all women. [applause]
>> thank you, antonia. now for those of you who know mos, you know how challenging my task is to introduce dinner. where does one start? to see your visor for president can gain as well as the campaign for the u.s. senate and served in the white house as director of communications and then senior counselor to then-president clinton. she chairs the u.s. working group for the women's 2000 special session of the united nations general assembly. she served as the national chair of the democratic national committee's women center, leaving the democratic party major initiative to reach, engage and mobilize women voting. and served as vice president for public policy at planned
parenthood federation of america, where she was responsible for policy, legal and communications initiatives. she served as national direct your a democratic action and is a political director for the democratic national committee. and anne is also one of the first chief of staff to then congress and barbara mikulski. please welcome, anne lewis. [cheers and applause] >> so in 1986 i was explaining to my friends in d.c. about the terrific senate candidate that they didn't know and one of them who is actually a political columnist at pity on me and said, you've got it today. barbara mikulski doesn't look like a senator. that's right i said. jesse hill looks like a senator.
[laughter] i want to change with the senate looks like. [cheers and applause] well, we are here today to celebrate how senator mikulski changed not just for the senate looks, but how it works for the better. we are still being in the first-ever democratic women to look good in her own right to the united states senate. the first woman ever in her history to serve on the congressional help assist in, the first sitting member of congress elected to the national women's hall of fame and the first member of the united states senate to post or crab cakes recipe on her website. [laughter] to a world full of organizers, let me say, we have a role model and barbara mikulski. as a young social worker, she heard about plans to build a highway to baltimore, establish
after an american neighborhoods. barbour said no. she did not wheel and deal. she didn't say, just move it over a little bit, just save my neighborhood and take those other guys instead. she built a coalition of every neighborhood. she called the neighborhood residents to work together on the basis of what they have in common, not what divided them. and she invited the press to watch as she planted a tree in the path of this proposed tirade. well, the highway stops, the neighborhoods were saved and barbara mikulski has been speaking out and organizing for social justice ever sent. [cheers and applause] and congress, barbara brett the issues of day-to-day economics and basic fairness to the front of the national agenda. she also did the spouse so impoverished that protecting the
spouse's partner went into a nursing home from poverty or stage towards divorce and of course she let the site for lily let that are for the question of basic fairness, not just some of that, but her check books. and when the senate voted down the lilly ledbetter at the 2007, barbara took to the floor and called on the spirit of abigail adams and said to the women of america, this isn't the end. this is the beginning of the fight. and as you know, that became the first failed sign by our new president. [applause] now as i said, barbara was the first woman ever to serve as a member of the subcommittee. inc. about that. 200 years of american history. not one more policy table three shows with other members like pat schroeder. what did they find? they found women were not included in the clinical trial.
we didn't know if it would work for women as women had had never been included. women were getting just a small fraction of attention and barbour said not anymore. she offered the legislation to establish women's and saw that women's health got the attention it deserved and women are now included in the trials. when the senate considered the affordable care act, the cbo said health care for women would be too expensive. barbour said no, being a woman is not a preexisting condition. [applause] and she began organizing on and off the senate floor. but we all know that at least until we hear from the supreme court in this health care bill, gender at kuwait no labor costs women more. being a victim of domestic violence no longer bars women from getting health insurance
and preventive health care is available for everyone at nasa should be. [applause] as a member of the international appropriations committee, barbara brings the same principles we open on today, that women's rights are human rights, that every person deserves dignity and fairness and we both live in the safer and more secure world like every child has a chance for a better future. and i love knowing she's on the intelligence committee. i don't know what goes on there, but i'm so happy to have barbara's intelligence. and today we celebrate barbara's coaching because wherever she goes, she has brought her concerns and support further women allowed when she was first elected to the senate in 1986, barbour said i don't just want to first. i want to be the first of many.
she had worked to elect women senators and welcome when they apprised. it is a natural resource for women candidatecandidate s from the supportive stone cold to see them here for you to it via some policy and strategy and fundraising in both politics and fundraising for democrats, barbour also reaches out to everyone. as dean of the center, she was the most small bipartisan seminar to renew colleagues to post the rules and procedures in the unwritten posts about how to be effective in the senate. she hosts regular bipartisan women only pushes the only bipartisan operation in operation today. such a barbara mikulski, and accomplish senator and inspired organizer, leader, advocate and our friend, thank you. [applause]
[cheers and applause] >> on behalf of the various of the feminist majority, it gives me great pleasure to present a fearless trailblazer award, a beautiful award to senator barbara mikulski in recognition of her historic achievement, for women in the united states and for women worldwide. senator boxer.
[applause] >> senator mikulski when she saw me last week, she said one more out there -- [inaudible] >> hi, everybody. we might have changed the face of the united states senate, but they still for the long of the link here. hi, everybody. when incredible group and gathering. i'm really touched by the award, but i'm also here representing senator barbara boxer. today is the last day for the senate to be in session before the easter passover break and we are trying to does the highway bill. senator boxer has that been
highway transportation initiatives in the united states senate. she forged a bipartisan legislation bringing together four different committees. they require an incredible negotiation, great diplomatic bill and now we are ready for the house to act in barbara could not leave her duty station. so she said when we had her vote before another matter, is that i'm going over to the senate majority. she said, you know, barbara, she said i can't leave and i said they would not want you to leave. every single one of you who worked so hard. [applause] it's not about the award. in other words, let's make sure what is the highway bill is not
only are important for america's infrastructure is not only important to public health, it is important for jobs and it will be the closest we will come to an infrastructure to hundreds of thousands of jobs. arbor boxer is said to you, bart, you've got to keep america rolling. [applause] sister allie, to pay, jollity she sends her love and also her great debt of gratitude. i want to thank ann lewis were great words of introduction but they also want to thank ann for the gift of ann. she is one of the great leaders and voices here. [applause] us not to acknowledge the wonderful other honorees in the great wonderful carolyn maloney
and heart broker of the afl-cio. the feminist majority. i don't know the phrase. 25 years ago, the feminist majority got started just at exactly the time that i've come to the united states senate. it's hard to believe and i see they had felt changed in the face of american politics, not only in washington but in state houses and local government and that way has helped shape the whole last part of the 20th century. and i think that we need to congratulate the founder of the organization, kathy, ted yorkton, kathy spillar and of
course our intrepid in their own right. and there is no buddy like kelley. [cheers and applause] we were talking about this this morning. they said elliott's fearless. he used the same term about allie as they use about bar tonight. she's feisty. but what we know is she is a fighter for the advancement of women here in their own country and around the world. she has played a major role in every single saddle. economic quality, stopping violence against women from here and around the world. in the early days, she let the grassroots effort to pass the fiscal rights amendment initiative passed the senate and we have to get back to it now.
[applause] she wants women to be voices to be heard and unfettered and censored around the world, but she thought that god girl and she will continue upward. it was one of the first of the feminist majority. to really know what was happening to women who are behind the veil. women who buy their own short were being kept under the circumstances in afghanistan and in other countries were they had outbreaks. they had no power and often at night your soul for being forced into marriage. allie was the first to sound the alive and i believe the difference that then we could have a different direction in afghanistan. but you know, feminist majority is, it's not just an organization. it's a mission to equality for women, to education and outreach
in the political action. if you want a group, called the feminist majority. they can make their announcements and i'm telling you, 25 years is just the beginning and we look forward to 25 more years as the senate majority. [applause] for me, this has been quite a journey and i spent quite a week in quite a month. this past week i became the longest-serving woman in the district of the united states. [cheers and applause] but for me it is not how long you serve, but how will users and the honor of who we serve with. i know here in the audience today is one of my great car leaks -- colleagues. [cheers and applause] barbara boxer and i had the
chance to be the first, first in a lot of ways and we always say we wanted to be the first of many. but talking to other people who became first. sally rice, sandra day o'connor, the first set of the national institutes of health, in my own community, mary writer who just won the nobel prize. and as i talk with them, there are certain characteristics now share with you because i think you share things that are terrific. first of all a great passage for public service to be part of the public good to not only make history, but to change history. we also know deep inside of us that we might be the first, we don't get to be a easter fell whole lot of ways. those who get to be me want to save banks was made that possible tourist families come,
to a great future, people in a tremendous investment and believed in us, the fact that their public institutions by public schools, public libraries, public universities they give it an equal shot. [cheers and applause] and we want to thank those, also the great volunteers who helped us via and when elections come again on school boards come and make the change and help us in the workforce and what we do know is we really do appreciate them. and for all of you and mr., arbor and i and all members of the senate want to thank you for what you do. we know that she do it on your own time. we know that she do it on your own time and we see thank you, thank you. we know that she put in three ships, and america placed a living painting. i know what their family to make it worthwhile and very chip to empower and embrace the standard
of living for all women and that is what we need to be committed to. and that is what we need to be now on the brink of the election year. i think this is a wonderful moment. i thank you for the award. but it is not a time for self congratulations for personal adulation. it is the time to organize, a time to mobilize, it's time to get ready so we do not lose the game that we have five so hard to achieve. [cheers and applause] and we have it in our power. the editor or a stick of many of us who are the first and many of you in this room is that often what we do is know becomes their greatest threat. we saw that in the united states senate when lilly ledbetter legislation was struck down by
the supreme court, weaver to pass the limit that are legislation. you remember what happened then and there? we lost that day, but if everyone went off to the floor and those that opposed it for up in their chest, i took the microphone and i said hey, wait a minute. just because we lost the vote today, and does that mean we are going to stop trying. we are here to say we will have equal pay for equal work and we are going to continue to fight for. so women of america, this is the next wave of the american revolution. do you remember when albert hall wrote john? abigail said while you're down there in philadelphia writing constitutions and laws, hanging out with other resolutions, we
are here running the farm, keeping it going and behind every father and father was a founding mother who wanted to be included. so what i said was we are that revolution. and i said to the women of the senate, come on back. square your soldiers, suit up. picture lipstick on and let's fight another day. [cheers and applause] so today is not about honoring so today is not about honoring others, but it is about make sure we are working to create a whole new village others, but it is about make sure we are working to create a whole new village, where everybody is equal, where everybody gets a shot at being able to make a chance for themselves. i want to thank a feminist majority because they then on rescue organizers and when all is said and done, it is the power of social movements that
we take their country for every century in the past and this 21st century. so now, here we are. we've had some setbacks come without some challenges, but let's do what i said. with square our shoulders, put on lipstick on and let's get out there, fights and mobilize for 2012 and may the force be with us. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> senator mikulski, senator mikulski before you leap this stage, would like to be retold by allie steele to present senator mikulski senator boxer's
everyone that you are seeing women in this room today that will be in history books and they hope you all remember this because the youngest ones here will be telling their children who they saw a how it did then, being in the brim with women like this were ever inside how crazy it was that women were equal except for my parents were got the idea in the first place. and i am so honored to be in your presence and so honored to be part of this award for senator boxer as well. thank you so much. thank you, barbara. >> thank you. [applause]
>> thank you, senator mikulski. and now i would like to prop late introduce allie steele, president of the senate's majority, one of the architects of the modern drive for women's equality. allie has played a pivotal role in defining the debate, developing the strategy and charging the direction of the modern-day women's movement. she was the first identify the gender gap, which is the difference i see no between the way women vote and then vote and she was the first to popularize the election and polling analyses to show women's voting class. i have been fortunate privilege to work with ally these past 25 years and i know that i have learned from the best. allie steele. [cheers and applause]
>> thank you. >> thank you very much and thank you, senator mikulski. thank you for your kind words about me. with her hair for each tribute and it's just so typical that she turned around to to make a tribute to the majority and thank you very much. she is one-of-a-kind and i'm so happy that she is in the senate fighting for relevance. i'm going to make my remarks short, but i wanted to come back here for the 25th anniversary to think so many people in this term. i wish i could thank everybody, but that would be possible. or 51 cosponsors.
women's organization, civil rights organization, labor organization who have signed on and you have been constant allies, that their rights the whole -- the whole pie because this time when they go for it for quality, we leave no one behind. [cheers and applause] the feminist majority was a group of guys who came from an actual organization for women and i went to pay special thanks to our home group, the national organization for women i said no we would complement each other and we would be there for each other and i am very honored that
today there are several former president peter. patricia ireland, former president of the national organization for women. [applause] gennie candy who is at gennaro consult. [applause] and the current president, jerry o'neill. [applause] and my surveys now has not stopped. i am the cochair of the survivors aboard and i would like to recognize the senator and ambassador, carol moseley who is also cochair of the advisory board. [applause] with janet canterbury, that are janet canterbury, the one and only. arthur cochair of the advisory board.
[applause] a minor cosponsors here today, there are started as the turn-of-the-century, namely aew, american association of university women and president linda holliman who has been there every inch of the way fighting for educational rights. there she is. hi, linda and is here fighting for us with her votes and i'll come back to that. the league of women voters. the ywca. and debbie frat, businesses for the women's foundation. we are here with so many groups than i am very pleased that our sisters from the labor movement is here, the president of the coalition of labor union women and i want you to know when i became president in 1977, may 1st speech was to have your founding convention that
the coalition was over, dyer from ua debut sewer rates go back a long way and i'm very pleased that lives schuller, the secretary-treasurer of afl-cio is here and the highest ranking women in labor. i can't mention everybody, but i want to skip to the new groups because we spend the whole century and as you know arbors the whole century and as you know arbors to abigail adams and senator mikulski just sad. but one of the new groups that is here his moms rising who is putting us online. [applause] and we are going to go under animals. we have all coalition, old friends and we have new coalition, which stands for health and economic rights and they are going to be giving a whole panel after this event.
for 25 years, we have tried to concentrate on projects and to bolster in every way because the ongoing drive for equal rights. i want to just go through some of the bills that we have worked on and you have to do. somewhere under to spearhead and others were just soldiers in the battle tracks worth a total of first he equality. 1991 please formed in 1991 -- 1987 weaver formed shortly after that we restored title ix all of us working together in the civil rights restoration act which was started in the reagan and industry should. we restored it and we've been fighting to keep it ever since. we got to keep title ix. then we could all hold anita
hill thing and we got the civil rights act of 1991 the fortified title vii of the equal employment act and we fought all of the series until the lily that iraq to keep it on the books and we are going to be there because we intend to pass the fair pay act that will even make it stronger. [applause] 1994 with a great year. we passed the freedom of access their poor part of the spearhead a drive and violence against women not. and if we think the sky over and, forget it. we have right now fighting to reauthorize the violence against women act. and can you believe they came out of the senate only with a candidate vote a straight partyline vote of democrats voting for come republicans against it. that must be correct date. this is a bipartisan not that we tend to reauthorize this year.
there were shenanigans in the house last night, but it will pass. women deserve it but we would is a coalition fighting for it. the domestic violence offenders. in 2007 the protection that was ratified and ultimately that is a banner year we approved earlier portion to 50% finally after a 12 year campaign to senate majority held and then of course the lily that iraq and now the affordable care act, which we are going to have to fight for, fight for, fight for, but it gave us a title ix equal protection for women. you can now charge one price to man and one price to women. jesse pays more? us. that is over with. we intend to keep it on the books that we are going to keep fighting for the affordable care act. [applause]
i am wearing a 7% that and the restarted it was 5%. now we are only 17% of congress and we are going to keep this up until we're 61%. [applause] and not only have we been fighting for elected offices have been fighting for appointments. remember when we were called feminist bean counters? well, we keep on checking the numbers. right now we are 7%. but i am proud to say that we just broke a record of 47% of president of honest judicial appointments are now women, 29% people of color. we are coming a long way from those miserable ways. [applause] yes we have a lot to fight for
and we have one alive. i think this is her most crucial year. in 2012, almost everything is on the line and we are going to make sure that people know we're not going back on birth control. we are not going backwards on title ix and title vii. we are not going to go backwards and recognize personhood amendments for giving fertilized eggs more statues and women. we are going to make sure that women's rights goes only forward into the 21st century. thank you all for being here. i salute you and i can't wait until we not only do all of this, but i intend to be alive. i don't know if i will, but i'm tend to be.
so ratified the equal rights amendment. [cheers and applause] thank you very much. >> thank you. another change of plans. don't go too far. carolyn maloney has been able to join us in between critical votes. and so we are switching the order of time. your flexibility is greatly appreciated. we are going to start the seller to congresswoman carolyn maloney was probably the youngest feminist here today, isabella. [applause] >> hello, everyone. i've isabella golf fan and i am a student and later at the gross international chapter was about intermediate school in new jersey. [cheers and applause]
i am thrilled that we are honoring congresswoman carolyn maloney. our chapter has studied about the taliban's cruel treatment of afghan women and girls and how they did not allow girls to go to school. although today they could go to school, girls still face that's from extremists. gross walking to school have had acid thrown in their faces and hundred of girls schools have been burned down. we know about this because our chapter has partnered with entering a case of the abdullah bin omar school outside of kabul. we raised funds to support girls education. the afghan girls tell us despite these threats come and they desperately want to continue their education and pursue their dream of becoming doctors, lawyers and teachers.
[applause] on behalf of the gross at her partner school in afghanistan and on behalf of gross in the united states, i'm so honored to have the opportunity to thank you, congresswoman maloney for your incredible service and for never letting the united states forget about the hopes and dreams of afghan women and girls. also, i would like to thank you for being a role model for future generations of female leaders. thank you. [applause] >> so another change because shiites keeps this direct problem. when mora who is the head of the congresswoman scott s. west to deliver a tribute to you, but she's been caught they are with important business. so i lied.
i want to us as it is about is the youngest person in the program at the degree. but i wanted to just recognize the oldest participant here is ruth mandel, who was working for the women's bureau for over 20 years. she is celebrating her 98th year. [cheers and applause] thank you very much. [inaudible] she went to my? okay, i'm sorry.
>> made you read! >> and i'd like to present the tribute to carolyn maloney, which i'm going to say from my heart. for years, we have worked together. i have never known a relationship by carolyn maloney beat me to the feminist movement. herb kohl model she told me a long time ago with pat schroeder at that time when she came in was the dean of the women in the house and she wanted, she said to the lake pat who left from congress not only that she's
done it. she's left. in fact, we are supposed to be the people writing them. she's the one woman priding us at 1:00 in the morning or whatever time it is. she is determined -- determined to keep the fight to the equal rights amendment before our nation. and it means that first times, i must single-handedly has gained 185 cosponsors in this not most progressive house of representatives. [cheers and applause] that we want to honor her today because it is the 40th year since the era first came out at the congress in 1972.
and she -- i believe, will lead us to the very. we are all going to be there. in addition to wreak rights amendment, carolyn has had a very, very good ruling congress. she's one of these people who doesn't matter if it's her party is in the majority or the minority. it doesn't matter because she is going to pass legislation. she's going to figure out how to pass it and she's going to created that she does. so what has been the fruit of this. one of the major things was the deadliest that act, which is the whole thing of raising kids in the processing of them. she not only passes the arts to make sure passes, she makes sure it gets funding and to keep correct tenet in case this spending is not right and spent in the right manner. she also was the first chair in the army committee and herbal
and finance i don't think he might not know about. she not only is the author of the credit card bill of rights, which has changed really the right of every human been in this state, in this country that has a credit card, but she has done a friend that manhattan district that she represents. in other words, she takes on the financial entries in her constituency because she is representing the little old all over this country. but she is representing us all over. [applause] she has been a fierce defender of pay equity and pointing out how women are but dust and not in economic equal and she once they are to be striking. and so many ways, and so many different paths, she has
reference the fact that the feminists within the legislature she is the legislature parks. he gives me great honor to honor you. you deserve it and i want you to lead us to the area. [cheers and applause] >> keyword creates -- [inaudible] -- for the equal rights amendment and her fight for women's rights worldwide. and by the way, the one thing i left off but i love this so much. one day she put the burqa on on
the floor of the house and spoke as she got the funding. she got the barbara boxer letter of the senate, maloney letter in the house and spent the night, $600 million about the women's program in afghanistan. and then -- i just can't believe it. she was right there when they denied sandra to be a to the administration committee. and she just asked one question. where are the women quiet thank you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, my friends. i am just so honored and thrilled to be here at the 25th anniversary of this wonderful organization that does
so much to hope women in america and around the world. and especially to receive an award in such gracious remarks from my best friend in the women's movement. i call her saint pauli the divine because whenever i reach out, she never says, why are you calling me at such a late hour to tell me emergent kiwi have to do some theme. obviously if i knew there was an emergency would've called earlier. but she just goes to work and works hard to help everyone. there is sort of an informal chain of women around this country that reacts and pulls together whenever there is a goal that we have been she is the strongest link in that chain. so to receive this award from her that mean so very, very much to me. and i look at industry may see so many mobile women that have done so much to hope others.
kathy bonk was founded to communications consortium and has led us in so many ways. [applause] and now i call than the enervate of the women's movement. [laughter] because they have a chapter in every faith, in some cases every community and they are able to lobby from the grassroots up. and i see terry o'neill and the current president kim gandy, thank you for all your work. the martha burk and alex cohan and many, many really pillars for women's movement. i must say that this is a very exciting time for all of us and despite all the problems that we have, we are lucky to be living at the time that we can make things better. and we really can. when sandra wanted to testify
and we were told she was unqualified, i venture to say any woman is more qualified to talk about women's health than any man. [applause] and she graciously stood her ground and i'm so proud of sandra. but when i wrote a "huffington post" article about what happened, over 2000 people rode in. they rode and commented on how outraged they were the women did not have a place at the table. and how outrageous it was that rush limbaugh made the decision not to be fair, but to attack her in the most disrespectful way with horrible word that i will not repeat them as he was attacking her, he is attacking
in america and showing america that you could call an innocent student anything am thinking he can get away with it. so i am proud of eleanor smeal regained the effort to thrash rash. [applause] now over 100 companies have withdrawn their adversaries name from his show that we should not stop until every single company has withdrawn their advertising of the shadow that attacks for no reason and innocent girl, calls for the worst name i've ever heard and believe me if she sued him for slander, she would win. he had no grounds for any and he said anna was terrible.
i say we have to realize their own strengths. we are 51% of the population. we are 51% of the purchasing power in america and we need to politely ask them to remove their advertising and if they do not, we need a national campaign to with our dollars, boycott those firms that are funding a program that is so disrespectful to 51% of the population of america. [applause] we did to show them the power of economic withdrawal. right now in the floor of congress we are voting on the budget and i have to get that. but we are at the 40th anniversary of the equal rights amendment and we celebrated it last week at capitol hill and on the 40th anniversary of the equal rights amendment been
approved by both houses of congress, i could not help but wonder how things might be different today if the era had actually been ratified by enough states all those years ago and become part of our can't do to shame. because of the quality had been enshrined in the constitution for those past 40 years, i wonder if we would still be hearing today for republican presidential contenders say, and i quote, women should not be in combat, that women should take twice before seeking to work outside the home. that women should not use birth control and women who do are called names that are not fit to repeat here. i just wonder if this country would've been different. and i wonder if we would be having congressional hearing that focused solely on the issue of women's reproductive health care, where we had an all-male
panel of it all found ourselves compelled to ask the most obvious question, where are the women? if the era had been ratified for years ago, i wonder if we are looking in the war on women today by dark colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to resist that notion, just as they dismiss the concerns in the health care needs of women nearly every single day. but take a look at the pattern that we are seeing across the country and in congress. and when you look at it, there is a very disturbing, disturbing pattern of rolling back things that we talk for. and the house of representatives, the defendant planned parenthood, which is the primary health care provider the majority of women in this
country. and what about h.r. 538, the so-called women died so and we had the effort to pass the blunt amendment that would've outlawed many safe and affect his forms of birth control for women. and in arizona, new hampshire, virginia, similar aggressive efforts have been proposed or passed, which roll back the privacy between women and their dock chairs fighting for their health needs. when you look at these different offers and tens of thousands, it is a pattern. here in congress and all across the country. ask yourself if this doesn't match an all out assault on women's right to control her body and on a woman's right to make her own decisions. i think it is time to declare loud and proud that we will not